Gain complimentary access to the Editor’s Synopsis
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, highlights her preferred articles in this weekly bulletin.
Reflect on the predicament confronting Sir Keir Starmer less than seven days prior.
Had the United Kingdom chosen to wholly endorse a further indefinite American conflict in the Middle East — a region then devoid of immediate peril — it would have demonstrated an utter lack of comprehension from past events. Conversely, if the UK were to oppose such an undertaking, it risked incurring Donald Trump’s fury, which itself carries grave consequences. Our island nation’s security hinges on American backing, extending even to the Trident nuclear deterrent. Ukraine’s future also depends on it.
Starmer’s response to this dreadful quandary has been to resist the initial assault but subsequently join the defence against Iran’s counterattack. This represents not an excessive measure of prudence, but rather the bare minimum one would expect. Nor is Starmer demonstrating indecision. He opposed the phase of the conflict he deemed unlawful and supported the phase he considered legitimate. Alternatively, if international public law isn’t the primary concern, consider it this way: he would not have instigated Iran, but once it attacked British allies, he reacted with force. British aircraft intercepted drones over Jordan on Tuesday.
Ultimately, Trump’s ire manifested regardless, as it did towards Spain, with whom he desires to “sever all commerce” for denying access to its military installations. However, appeasing the US is merely one criterion — not the sole one — for policy evaluation. The degree to which the Conservatives and Reform UK hold a differing view is disquieting. The Tories frequently emphasize that Canada and Australia supported Trump from the outset. Yet, Australia also dispatched combat troops to the Vietnam War, whereas Britain, like the remainder of Europe, did not. If the Tories lament that non-participation as a betrayal of the Anglosphere, they ought to make it known. Regarding Iran, Starmer’s stance coincided with those of France and Germany.
A still more crucial alignment exists with the populace. Opinion polls indicate that British voters object to the American intervention. At this juncture, a certain type of armchair strategist might boastingly declare that leadership entails guiding, and that Winston Churchill never consulted a focus group. No individual who experienced the Iraq years can countenance such bombast. A nation’s capacity to achieve its military objectives truly depends on domestic sentiment. The occupation of Iraq (and Afghanistan) might have proceeded more favorably with a doubled or tripled military presence, but Western electorates would not have endured it. A war’s unpopularity serves as a logical operational argument against prosecuting it, even if it isn’t the absolutely decisive factor.
Within Britain’s parliamentary framework, the prime minister lacks the prerogative to question the opposition leader. Columnists are not similarly constrained. So, here goes: Did you anticipate that a few air strikes on Iran last Saturday would escalate into a regional confrontation by Monday? If not, does that not suggest a need for more humility moving forward? Should Iran collapse into a failed state, what actions should Britain take to stabilise it? After all, by virtue of its geographic position, Britain is more likely than America to experience the repercussions, including refugee influxes. If the current government endures and becomes even more antagonistic, what should be the British contribution to its removal? My apologies for belabouring the point, but neither the Iraq, Afghanistan, nor Libya experiences grant interventionists the benefit of the doubt.
There is insufficient disapproval across the realm for this government’s domestic accomplishments. Labour was ill-prepared to govern the nation, as some were ready to caution at the time, when the gullible were proclaiming “Britain is back” with conviction.
“Domestic” is a significant qualifier, however. On the international stage, Labour has rectified some of the damage caused by the post-Cameron Tories through innovative strategies such as condescending to visit the planet’s second-largest economy. Starmer has also mended relations with the EU and humbled himself before Trump in the interest of Britain (and Ukraine).
His prudence regarding Iran is consistent with this track record. In contrast, the least appealing aspect of the otherwise improving Conservative leader remains her international stance. It is worthwhile to reflect on a statement Kemi Badenoch made this week: “Across the UK there are groups whose political allegiances when it comes to conflicts in the Middle East do not align with British national interests. These are people who Labour considers their constituents because without them, they cannot retain power.”
Badenoch’s most commendable characteristic is her directness, stemming from clear reasoning. Here, however, she employs veiled hints and insinuation. If she refers to Muslim voters, she should articulate it explicitly. A couple of counter-arguments could then be presented openly. First, opposition to this conflict is not exclusive to Muslims, as she might discover in the coming weeks. Second, her party has for decades been notoriously inept at interpreting the British “interest.” Examples include its endorsement of the Iraq war and a Brexit that most voters deem a misstep.
Those who disparage the patriotism of their fellow citizens should not object if the discourtesy is reciprocated. The British right’s inclination to experience events vicariously through the US is even more pronounced now than when the Brexit vote occurred a decade ago. Most of the time, it is merely unseemly. When the subject is war, it is considerably worse than that. The deadly chauvinism that Wilfred Owen depicted with such measured fury in “Dulce et Decorum est” was, at least, on behalf of one’s *own* country.
janan.ganesh@ft.com